ERIC ED481792: Interaction with Heritage Language Learners in Foreign Language Classrooms.

27 Pages·2003·0.44 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 481 792
FL 027 874
AUTHOR
Lacorte, Manel; Canabal, Evelyn
TITLE
Interaction with Heritage Language Learners in Foreign Language
Classrooms.
PUB DATE
2003-0C-00
NOTE
25p.; In: The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms:
Contributions of the Native, the Near-Native, and the Non-Native
Speaker. Issues in Language Program Direction, A Series of Annual
Volumes; see FL 027 869.
PUB TYPE
Reports
Descriptive (141)
EDRS PRICE
EDRS Prite MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Cultural Influences; *Heritage Education; Higher Education; Language
Teachers; *Native Speakers; Preservice Teacher Education; Second
Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Social Influences;
Sociocultural Patterns; *Teacher Student Relationship
IDENTIFIERS
*Heritage Language
ABSTRACT
This paper examines classroom interaction between native and non-
native instructors and heritage language (HL) students in regular university foreign
language (FL) courses, ranging from beginning to advanced levels. After an overview of
FL teaching and HL students in U.S. universities, the paper deals with three
areas
within classroom interaction:
the sociocultural backgrounds of both HL learners
(1)
and native and non-native instructors;
the pedagogical conditions of FL classrooms
(2)
with HL students; and (3;
the affective dimensions of the relationship between
instructors and HL students. The paper's analysis of these issues serves
as a basis
for a pedagogical framework for use by native and non-native instructors teaching
a FL
that is also the home language of HL learners, as well as for programs of FL teacher
education. Finally, the paper offers some suggestions for future research into the
multifaceted social, cultural, and pedagogical conditions of FL classrooms with
HL
learners.
(Contains 80 references.)
(SM)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that
can be made
from the original document.
Interaction with
Heritage Language Learners
in Foreign Language Classrooms
9,404))
Manel Lacorte and Evelyn Canabal
University of Maryland-College Park
00
44
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
his document has been reproduced as
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
received from the person or organization
rr
BEEN GRANTED BY
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
&16T,L0
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Interaction with
Heritage Language Learners
in Foreign Language Classrooms
Manel Lacorte and Evelyn Canabal
University of Maryland-College Park
tahreerseutlht noifcthgerogurpowts inh tohfeHuisnpiatendics, AtastieasninAfrirecceannt, yAreaarbsic, aonsdt
institutions of higher education have experienced significant
changes in the composition of their student body, more accurately re-
flecting the multicultural nature of the country. Logically, as the stu-
dent population becomes more diverse in general, the population of
FL classrooms does so as well. In recent years, there has been an in-
crease in the presence of heritage language (HL) learners, i.e., students
from homes where languages other than English are spoken, or who
have had in-depth exposure to another language (Campbell 1996;
UCLA Steering Committee 2000). Studies in general education and FL
teaching and learning have addressed many questions that concern
HL learners, such as their range of proficiencies, and the instructional
goals and models appropriate for that population. However, little re-
search has been conducted on the social and pedagogical climate of
classrooms where native as well as non-native instructors teach a FL
which is also the home language of the HL learner. This paper exam-
ines classroom interaction between native and non-native instructors
and HL students in regular university FL courses, ranging from be-
ginning to advanced levels. After an overview of FL teaching and HL
students in U.S. universities, the paper deals with three areas within
classroom interaction: (a) the sociocultural backgrounds of both HL
learners and native and non-native instructors; (b) the pedagogical
conditions of FL classrooms with HL students; and (c) the affective di-
mensions of the relationship between instructors and HL students.
I-
Our analysis of these issues serves as a basis for a pedagogical frame-
..
work for use by native and non-native instructors teaching a FL that
is also the home language of HL learners, as well as for programs of
....
We would like to thank Maria Carreira, Kim Potowski and Scott McGinnis
---.
for their instructive comments on earlier drafts of this article.
107
3
108
The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms 9'°'
FL teacher education. Finally, the paper offers some suggestions for
future research into the multifaceted social, cultural, and pedagogical
conditions of FL classrooms with HL learners.
Foreign Language Teaching and
Heritage Language Learners in the U.S.
The results of the 1998 survey of FL registration carried out by the
Modern Language Association (MLA) given in Table 1 indicate that
Spanish is the first choice among university students, and that it oc-
cupies a significant place in the undergraduate curriculum (Brod and
Welles 2000). The statistics also show that enrollment in other tradi-
tional FLs is decreasing, and that students are learning a greater vari-
ety of languages.
Numerous studentsespecially in large institutionshave tradi-
tionally taken FL courses in order to fulfill part of their requirements
in certain academic fields. However, other students enroll in interme-
diate and advanced language or content-based FL courses, which
allow them to obtain honorific mentions or citations in the language,
and even pursue a secondary or complementary program of studies
e.g., Spanish and Business, German and Philosophy, French and
Diplomacy, Italian and Art History, etc. As mentioned in the introduc-
tion, with the recent population shift in the U.S. there has been a
widespread increase in the number of students with diverse ethnic,
Table 1
1998 Foreign Language Enrollment in U.S. Higher Education (MLA)
Percentage change
1995
1998
Spanish
606,286
656,590
8.3
3.1
French
199,064
205,351
7.5
German
89,020
96,263
3.5
Japanese
43,141
44,723
Italian
49,287
43,760
12.6
Chinese
26,471 28,456
7.5
3.8
Russian
24,729
23,791
10.0
Hebrew
7,479
6,734
4,444
23.9
5,505
Arabic
Korean 3,343
34.0
4,479
Other languages
17,271
2.9
17,771
4
109
Interaction with Heritage Language Learners
Table 2
Profile of American College Population
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1999)
1999
1979
White non-Hispanic
71%
White non-Hispanic
84%
13%
Black
Black
10%
Asian/Pacific Islander
7%
Other races
2%
Hispanic
9%
Hispanic
4%
cultural or linguistic backgrounds. In 1999, 38% of public school stu-
dents were considered to belong to a minority group, especially His-
panic (National Center for Education Statistics 2001). According to a
population survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau (1999) as re-
ported in Table 2, the race and ethnic composition of college students
has also changed during the past two decades.
Many universities and colleges currently implement procedures or
policies regulating the placement of HL students in the basic sequence
of FL courses focused on the traditional linguistic skills in specialized
programs for HL learners (where they exist) or in advanced FL courses
dealing with content areas such as literature, cultural studies, or lin-
guistics (Draper and Hicks 2000). These placement policies can be
based on a single source or a combination of data from tests, struc-
tured or semi-structured interviews, referrals, etc.1
For the most part, FL courses are designed for monolingual speak-
ers of English with little or no knowledge about the language or the
people and the cultures involved (Campbell and Peyton 1998), even in
the case of less commonly taught language courses where enrollments
are often dominated by heritage learners (Brecht and Ingold 1998).
Lower-level FL courses in medium and large institutions are usually
taught by teaching assistants (TAs), lecturers or adjunct faculty.2
Courses at a more advanced level are generally conducted by tenure-
track or tenured faculty members. In contrast to the multisectioned
lower-level classes, where TAs and other instructors generally work
under the supervision of a course supervisor or a language program
coordinator, advanced-level classes tend to fall under the responsibil-
ity of the faculty member who has designed, or has been asked to
teach the course (Gutiérrez 1990). The following sections of this paper
will focus on FL classrooms where heritage learners interact with
native TAs (NTAs) and non-native TAs (NNTAs), an area of more im-
mediate interest for FL program coord inators.
110
The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms g4)
Research on Heritage Language Learners
The term "heritage language learner" is a relatively new concept in
language education research, which covers a wide range of profiles
such as "home background speaker," "native speaker," "quasi-native
speaker," "bilingual speaker," "semilingual speaker," "residual speaker,"
etc. (Draper and Hicks 2000; Valdés 1997). Several volumes on heritage
learners of Spanish and Chinese (AATSP 2000; Colombi and Alarcón
1997; Merino, Trueba, and Samaniego 1993; Valdés, Lozano, and
Garcia-Moya 1981; Wang 1996; Webb and Miller 2000) discuss the de-
velopment of this new field known as "teaching of heritage speakers."
Up to now, researchers have examined:
Characteristics of HL learners (Feuerverger 1991; Hidalgo
1997; Roca 1997; Rodriguez Pino 1997; Valdés 1995).
Role of FL pedagogy in teaching bilingual students and in
maintaining minority languages (Brecht and Ingold 1998;
Campbell and Peyton 1998; Valdés 2000; Zentella 1986).
Teaching of dialect, prestige or standard varieties (Carreira
2000; Hidalgo 1997; Porras 1997; Valdés 1998, 1999; Villa
1996).
Testing and assessment (Liu 1996; Otheguy and Toro 2000;
Teschner 2000; Valdés 1997; Wang 1996; Ziegler 1981).
Curricular and pedagogical issues (Colombi and Alarcón
1997; Mazzocco 1996; Merino, Trueba, and Samaniego
1983; Roca and Gutiérrez 2000; Romero 2000; Sak-
Humphrey 2000; Wang 1996).
Teacher education (Clair and Adger 1999; Gutiérrez 1997;
Peng 1996; Roca 1997; Romero 2000; Scalera 1997; Sylvan
2000; Valdés 1999; Villa 1996).
Perspectives on bilingualism and language loss, teacher atti-
tudes and beliefs (Clair and Adger 1999; Gutiérrez 1997;
Roca 1997; Romero 2000; Scalera 1997; Sylvan 2000; Valdés
1999; Villa 1996).
Although most of the research carried out in the U.S. has dealt
with Spanishprimarily due to both historical and demographic rea-
sonsthe above studies and their findings suggest a need for further
research on issues that may affect heritage learners in every language.
Much has been written about the teaching needs and practices of the
heritage population, not only in relation to what goes on within the
classroom, but often about the impact of HL programs in specific
communities. Some of these programs, aimed at language proficiency
111
Interaction with Heritage Language Learners
f
and cultural heritage maintainance, have slowly but steadily estab-
lished connections with school districts and universities so that her-
itage learners may receive academic credits in exchange for their work
in community language schools.3 Furthermore, the increasing aware-
and learning of foreign
ness of the differences between the teaching
languages, second languages, native languages and heritage languages
has opened a Pandora's box of questions that require urgent and care-
ful attention from researchers. In this respect, issues that had fre-
quently been raised through anecdotal descriptions alonee.g.,
placement, assessment, materials, and goalshave begun to be ana-
lyzed more systematically, addressing Valdés' argument that current
practices are not "informed by a coherent set of theories about lan-
guage learning" (Valdés 1997, p. 17).
Social and Cultural Backgrounds
Research has already demonstrated that "heritage language learners
student" (Draper
are different from the traditional foreign language
and Hicks 2000, p. 20), especially with regard to their sociolinguistic
background. It is thus essential to explore the uniqueness of HL learn-
and non-native
ers in order to understand their interaction with native
instructors in the FL classroom. The social and cultural background of
HL learners may involve questions such as: How well established is
the student's heritage community? How strong is the contact between
the heritage community and its country or countries of origin? How
well established is the student's heritage community? What are the
perceptions toward the specific ethnic group speaking the heritage
language? Despite these and other questions, the following variables
language:
can be considered as common to heritage learners in every
Age
Family background
Socioeconomic background
Level of education
Level of competency
Degree of contact and attitudes toward heritage community
Degree of acculturation to the mainstream community
Resources of the HL community (newspapers, TV stations,
school programs, community-based activities, etc.)
It is difficult to "match" heritage speakers' individual language
abilities in every FL course or to tailor courses to serve HL learners'
112
The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms 1/4g42'
needs, especially when some basic questions have not been answered.
For example, it is crucial that teachers know how different language
skills may transfer to ensure that pedagogical practices will suit the
objectives of a course for such diverse group of students. Also, a her-
itage learner may be fluent in the prestige variety or in the colloquial
(and often stigmatized) variety of the target language; he or she may
be English-dominant with or without good academic skills; he or she
may be a recent immigrant or may be a U.S. born second or third gen-
eration bilingual (Valdés 1997). Some may resist enrolling in an aca-
demic course on their heritage language after having internalized that
their language is defective and needs to be "corrected." Other students
are mostly receptive bilinguals conditioned not to "produce" anything
in the target language. These learners may often switch languages in
the midst of a conversation; they are probably members of speech
communities in which more than one language is typically used and,
in a classroom context, they often seem unable to understand gram-
matical explanations about their own heritage language.
The use of TAs in U.S. research universities became a standard
practice in the 1960s when the influx of war veterans and a general
population growth caused a shortage of instructors at the post-sec-
ondary levels (Schulz 2000). Universities appreciated the advantages
involved in "offering TA support to attract graduate students and at the
same time to hold down the cost of undergraduate instruction"
(Guthrie 2001, p. 20). After the 1970s, the number of international
teaching assistants (ITAs) started to increase steadily, due to favorable
academic conditions offered by U.S. institutions to international stu-
dents and scholars, and a general interest in new cultural and peda-
gogic perspectives in higher education (Chalupa and Lair 2001).4
While in the 1960s a majority of FL departments did not provide
training and supervision for their TAs, preservice and inservice prepa-
ration is now widely common in most institutions in a number of for-
mats such as methods courses, TA orientations, pedagogic and
professional workshops, resource centers, mentoring programs, etc.
Despite the improvements made in professional development of TAs,
the literature related to TAs in FL education has pointed to several
concerns regarding the personal, academic and professional needs of
both NTAs and NNTAs. For example, some writers have argued that
TA training may be more related to institutional demands than to the
overall education of TAs as professional teachers of language, litera-
ture, and culture (Gorell and Cubillos 1993; Kinginger 1995). In addi-
tion, the academic culture of FL departments may still reflect an
image of language teaching and TA training as subordinate to the
teaching of literature and cultural studies (Patrikis 1995). This could
8
113
Interaction with Heritage Language Learners
be the case in some departments with a strong literary orientation,
where TAs and ITAs may be less interested in teaching FL ora much
more common situationmay be subjected to arduous teaching
schedules, high academic expectations, and meager economic condi-
tions of their graduate assistant status, regardless of whether they are
teaching monolingual or heritage students.
Other studies have analyzed characteristics of TAs and ITAs con-
cerning the balance between language ability and intercultural and
pedagogic skills, the teaching of grammar and other cross-cultural
issues in the language classroom, and the process of acculturation to
the institutional context. Nelson's (1990) review of literature on ITA re-
search deals mainly with teaching behaviors that might be considered
effective instruction, like asking and answering questions, giving ex-
planations, and relating old and new information. The review con-
cludes that college students prefer ITAs who use interactive and
interpersonal teaching behaviors and who talk about their native cul-
ture in class. Salomone (1998) focuses on the teaching of grammar as
a crucial problem for ITAs in American colleges and universities. In
contrast to current teaching approaches in the U.S. that emphasize in-
class functional language use, the teaching practices of ITAs are typi-
cally grammar-based practices. The results indicate that ITAs in this
study seemed to be unsure about how to teach grammar, and some-
times unable to explain specific grammatical concepts to their stu-
dents within a communicative approach to language instruction.
Other pedagogic and cross-cultural issues refer to the ITAs concerns
over student behavior, students' lack of language background in both
English and the FL, student apathy, and differing perceptions of the
teacher's role and the student's role (Salomone 1998, p. 558). Chalupa
and Lair (2001) examine the situation of ITAs with regard to three dis-
tinct categories: language, acculturation, and university policy. As in
Salomone (1998), information was collected from ITAs with diverse
linguistic and professional backgrounds. The results of this study in-
dicate again the difficulties that ITAs may have in keeping a balance
between grammar teaching and a communicative orientation, espe-
cially when it comes to explaining complex grammar structures. Cul-
tural differences may arise in the level of formality or informality in
the classroom, the dynamics of teacher-centered vs. student-centered
instruction, and the personal interaction between students and in-
structors. Other comments from ITAs about U.S. students concern
their "lack of respect and self-motivation, their lack of seriousness
with regard to their education despite high tuition costs, their negative
reaction to instructor strictness, and the apparent pampering of the
students by the educational system" (Chalupa and Lair 2001, p. 135).
.
114
The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms '2°
Finally, differences between NTAs and NNTAs may also be noticed in
terms of their knowledge about the overall U.S. educational system,
and institutional policies related to grading, attendance and punctual-
ity, academic misconduct and discipline, and sexual harassment.
Pedagogical Conditions
Research conducted in the second or foreign language classroom has
provided teachers with answers to some queries about balancing com-
prehension and production, teaching grammar, treating errors, etc.
(see e.g., Chaudron 2001; Ligthbown 2000; Pica 1994). Finally, the de-
velopment of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning (1996) has
pointed to the combination of linguistic and cultural skills as the foun-
dation for proficiency in a FL, and the need to reconsider issues such
as the length of the sequences of language study, standards-based as-
sessment, and teacher development (Phillips 1999). These advances
have clearly had a positive effect in areas of FL teacher development
such as assessment of teacher effectiveness, models for preservice and
inservice development, supervisory practices, and data-based studies
relevant to teacher development (Schulz 2000,
495). However, many
P.
problems remain unexplored, especially in regards to the specific
social and pedagogical conditions that FL teachers find in their class-
rooms. This section focuses on pedagogical concerns in courses with
HL students, and more specifically on the linguistic competency in
English and the target language, the linguistic interaction between the
classroom participants, and the techniques and teaching materials
commonly used in FL instruction with HL students.
At the secondary level, FL teachers presently face a quite difficult
situation, wherein they may have to deal with traditional FL students
(monolingual Anglophone students); second- and third-generation
heritage students who are largely English-dominant; and newly ar-
rived students possessing little or no knowledge of English and differ-
ent degrees of schooling from their countries of origin (Valdés 1997).
In colleges and universities, the use of linguistic and cultural registers
is compounded by the diverse backgrounds of both instructors and
students. Newly arrived HL learners generally have high levels of lin-
guistic and cultural competency in their first language, but they may
lack second- and third-generation learners' familiarity with the lin-
guistic and cultural characteristics of both English and the heritage
language. Likewise, NNTAs often know the language and how to talk
about it, while NTAs often have a less structured knowledge of their
own language, but are more familiar with the target culture(s). An-
other group of TAs would consist. of HL learners enrolled as graduate
0